S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Bogus purchases-Not under any obligation to explain individual entry of purchases-Gross receipts remained undisputed-Additions deleted.[S. 69C]
Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 507 (Bang) (Trib.)S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Bogus purchases-Not under any obligation to explain individual entry of purchases-Gross receipts remained undisputed-Additions deleted.[S. 69C]
Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 507 (Bang) (Trib.)S. 44AD: Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Unexplained investment-Demonetization-Cash deposits in books-Source of cash deposits explained-VAT return-Declared sales-Sales not doubted-The additions cannot be made as cash credits or unexplained investment.[S. 68, 69]
Mohit Sukhija v. NFA (2025) 213 ITD 251 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Bank deposits-Treated as turnover-Assessing Officer had not shown that such deposits were different from business receipts; addition as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) was deleted.[S.68]
Jatin Arora. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 173 (Delhi) (Trib.)S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-VAT payment-Fake challan-No actual payment-Addition was justified-Deduction-LIC premium-Failure to produce evidence-Disallowance was affirmed. [S.80C]
Ganga Reddy Gidde. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 692 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Leave encashment-Disallowed earlier years-Settled by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Allowable as a deduction on a payment basis. [S.43B(f)]
Universal Cables Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 213 ITD 428 (Kol) (Trib)S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Gold and precious metals-lower authorities had neither referred to nor relied upon any objective market data to determine the fair value of purchases-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.[S. 40A(2)(a)]
ITO v. Khetalaji Gold (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 607 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Provision made for future expenditure-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. [S. 145]
ACIT v. Delhi Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 291 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Royalty-Payments made towards internet, broadband and bandwidth charges to foreign parties did not constitute royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.9(1)(vi), 195]
DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 453 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Amount paid to a foreign company towards management fees-Tax deducted and deposited-No addition could be made under section 40(a)(i), or the payment can be held to be as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.[S, 69C, 195]
ACIT v. Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)S.37(1): Business expenditure-Site maintenance expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 30 per cent-Disallowance restricted to 10 percent of expenditure.
Bollineni Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 213 ITD 635 (Hyd)(Trib.)